F-35A Catches Fire at Mountain Home Air Force Base

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 24 Sep 2016, 00:11

WASHINGTON — An F-35A caught fire during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, the Air Force confirmed to Defense News.

The incident took place at around noon and involved an F-35A aircraft from the 61st Fighter Squadron located at Luke Air Force Base, the service said in a statement. No serious injuries seem to have been sustained by the pilot or nearby crew.

"The pilot had to egress the aircraft during engine start due to a fire from the aft section of the aircraft," Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email. "The fire was extinguished quickly. As a precautionary measure, four 61st Aircraft Maintenance Unit Airmen, three Airmen from the 366th Maintenance Group and the 61st Fighter Squadron pilot were transported to the base medical center for standard evaluation."

Seven F-35As from Luke AFB, which is one of the bases responsible for joint strike fighter pilot instruction, had deployed to Mountain Home to conduct surface-to-air training from Sept. 10 to 24.

The root cause of the event is under investigation, Graff stated.

At the time of publication, it is still unknown whether the fire originated from the F-35's F135 engine, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney.

"We are aware of an incident involving an F-35A jet from Luke Air Force Base operating at Mountain Home Air Force Base, but we do not have any further details at this time," said Pratt & Whitney spokesman Matthew Bates. "We are ready to assist the U.S. Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office in their investigation."

It's also unknown if there is a connection to a recent problem with the F-35A's coolant line insulation that caused the flight operations of 15 joint strike fighters to be suspended. During depot maintenance it was discovered that the insulation around the coolant lines was breaking down inside the fuel tank— a situation the joint program office said was due to the supplier using the incorrect materials to manufacture the insulation.

The insulation issue also impacts 42 F-35s on manufacturer Lockheed Martin's production line. When the problem was made public last Friday, JPO officials said they were certain no other planes had been affected. Earlier this week, F-35 Joint Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Lockheed planned to test a potential fix next week, and if it works, company teams would roll out the following week to begin repairs.

Marine Corps Times Reporter Jeff Schogol and Defense News reporter Aaron Mehta contributed to this report.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-3 ... force-base

yeswepromise · by **yeswepromise** » 24 Sep 2016, 02:35

sounds bad from the headline... but no details. hope all is well. hope af-27 doesnt get a brother.

neptune · by **neptune** » 24 Sep 2016, 02:38

[quote="SpudmanWP''''"The pilot had to egress the aircraft during engine start due to a fire from the aft section of the aircraft," '''''[/quote]

...fuel line connections at or near the engine???...

....Fueldraulics line connectors (turkey feathers?) to fuel fire...??

....no idea??....not another Eglin!....crap!

blindpilot · by **blindpilot** » 24 Sep 2016, 07:27

There's a decently educated discussion going on at defense news in comments, if you ignore the spattering of a few anti-f-35 trolls. Spudman seems to be following it. I'm inclined away from a simple hotstart, but the "quickly extinguished" fire in the aft section does point more to possible parts/maintenance, operational problem than the design issues they had before. I've seen flames out the a$$, and I've seen engines shelling. This seems more like the former. We'll have to wait but this could be minor. "Quickly extinguished" also bodes well for quickly investigating and finding the issue.

It won't be the first fireball out the a$$ of a plane, nor likely the last especially with 2,000 plus F-35's, when it's fully operational.

MHO
BP

duplex · by **duplex** » 24 Sep 2016, 09:59

blindpilot wrote:There's a decently educated discussion going on at defense news in comments, if you ignore the spattering of a few anti-f-35 trolls. Spudman seems to be following it. I'm inclined away from a simple hotstart, but the "quickly extinguished" fire in the aft section does point more to possible parts/maintenance, operational problem than the design issues they had before. I've seen flames out the a$$, and I've seen engines shelling. This seems more like the former. We'll have to wait but this could be minor. "Quickly extinguished" also bodes well for quickly investigating and finding the issue.

It won't be the first fireball out the a$$ of a plane, nor likely the last especially with 2,000 plus F-35's, when it's fully operational.

MHO
BP

Fully operational? when do you think it would be operational , I mean trouble free, in 2030 ????

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Sep 2016, 10:17

'duplex' name a 'trouble free' aircraft please - I'm interested.

duplex · by **duplex** » 24 Sep 2016, 11:32

spazsinbad wrote:'duplex' name a 'trouble free' aircraft please - I'm interested.

Remember this fighter is delayed almost 10 years. Is this normal ? name me a fighter that experienced so many technical problems and still not fully operational even 10 years after the first flight !

vanshilar · by **vanshilar** » 24 Sep 2016, 11:50

duplex wrote:Remember this fighter is delayed almost 10 years. Is this normal ? name me a fighter that experienced so many technical problems and still not fully operational even 10 years after the first flight !

Actually the delay is around 5 years, and it's already reached IOC with the Marines and the Air Force. Other fighters: Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, etc., all have similar timelines. And how about the PAK FA? Lockheed Martin won the F-35 contract in 2001, Sukhoi won the PAK FA contract in 2002, how's that progressing?

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 24 Sep 2016, 12:00

Oh I can't wait to see all the $hit flinging the detractors will do when they get wind of this...

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Sep 2016, 12:32

'duplex' well named - answer a question with a question and on and on we go round and round the merry go round.

mk82 · by **mk82** » 24 Sep 2016, 13:03

duplex wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'duplex' name a 'trouble free' aircraft please - I'm interested.

Remember this fighter is delayed almost 10 years. Is this normal ? name me a fighter that experienced so many technical problems and still not fully operational even 10 years after the first flight !

It is very operational with the USAF and USMC at this point in time....do f*cking keep up :roll:

. Hmmmmm....a fighter that has experienced many technical problems early in its operational life....try the good old F16.....the Viper still became one of the most successful multirole fighter. Oh yeah, compared to other previous fighters during their development (F14, SU 27, F117A) the F35 so far has a fantastic safety record!

This fire ain't a showstopper...the cause will be found....a fix devised....life goes on!

yeswepromise · by **yeswepromise** » 24 Sep 2016, 13:53

Already seeing photos and dollar figures pop up on social media. funny thing is.... the photo is of AF-27. EG was the easy giveaway. lol

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 24 Sep 2016, 14:26

"...a fighter that has experienced many technical problems early in its operational life....try the good old F16" -- 500#bomb

Don't forget the 'most successful program in the history of the Navy' -- F/A-18.

From GAO reports in the early 80s, here's the short list of problems --

Software problems
APU problems
High oil temps
Bulkhead failures
Roll Rate problems (with major engineering changes to fix)
Poor transonic accel
Fuel cell leaks
Built-in test
Deficient in range/radius vs the spec (550nm objective, 400nm threshold; 380nm demonstrated)
2000# over spec weight
2 crashes in a three month period during development.

What about its cost? From an October 2011 DAU case study about Requirements and Cost Stability --

"Cost was an area where better execution should have been attained. The F/A-18A began as a $12.8 billion program ($8 billion for the base program and $4.8 billion for projected escalation costs) in FY1975. Ten years later, in FY1985, it had grown immensely to become a $39.3 billion program."

Need some more?

jessmo111 · by **jessmo111** » 24 Sep 2016, 14:40

Meanwhile over at SNAFU, Keypubs, The Canadian PMs office, war is boring, Mause house,
AV, and basements across America.

Im starting to believe they will pop champagne if someone gets hurt.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Sep 2016, 15:00

duplex wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'duplex' name a 'trouble free' aircraft please - I'm interested.

Remember this fighter is delayed almost 10 years. Is this normal ? name me a fighter that experienced so many technical problems and still not fully operational even 10 years after the first flight !

Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, just to name a few off the top of my head and it's not "10 years" delayed